« Lowest Unemployment Rate In Five Years | Main | John Kerry's 2008 Bumpersticker »

Is the New York Times being run by Karl Rove?

The New York Times, as has been noted before, has a remarkable history of "uncovering" stories just before major elections, stories that seem to have the common element of hurting Republican chances in the polls. That the stories often fall apart under closer scrutiny is, I'm sure, just another terrible, awful coincidence.

But this week, I'm starting to wonder if the Times is shading their bets a bit, by taking a few actions that, in the long run, might actually HELP the GOP.

First up, John Kerry dislocated that lantern jaw of his and shoved his foot right down his throat by clumsily turning a cheap shot against President Bush into a slam against US forces in Iraq. Lurch finally took enough dope-slaps from other Democrats and issued a quarter-assed apology (it didn't even rate as "half-assed"), and the Democrats hoped the furor would die out before the elections.

Then Seymour Hersh, the Times' superstar, stepped into the fray.

Hersh gave a speech in Montreal last week, and the "pull quote" everyone is focusing on is this:

"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn't happening now, but I will tell you - there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."

It was very reminiscent of John Kerry's own testimony before Congress back in 1971:

"They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country ..."

And, also, reminiscent of Kerry's statement on Meet The Press, when he was representing Viet Nam Veterans Against The War:

"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Gee, it's almost like the Times is trying to reaffirm the classic liberal stereotype that they "loathe the military."

Then, today, they have their story about Iraq's nuclear research program. Once again, on the surface, it appears another hatchet job on the Bush administration: either through incompetence or for sheer political gain, they released highy-sensitive nuclear secrets.

That's the sizzle, though. Here's the steak, buried down in the 14th paragraph:

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

It's rather carelessly written, but the interpretation I get is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that.

And in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.

I don't like to put too much stock in the New York Times, but to me that looks suspiciously like the "smoking gun" everyone said didn't exist.

So, why would the Times release -- less than a week before the elections -- a story that tends to disprove the arguments of so many on the Left, that Saddam had no WMDs, no WMD programs, and did not pose an "imminent threat?" Sheer incompetence is one possibility -- there's certainly no lack of precedent for that. But could it, instead, be designed to balance out their previous biased coverage and manufactured stories that have backfired so often in the past? Could they be looking to curry favor with the GOP, just in case the Democrats don't pull off a major victory on Tuesday?

Nah. I don't think they're that smart.

I'd rather think it's another amazingly brilliant move by Karl Rove. After all, he gets credit for everything else.


TrackBack

Comments (83)

From the left?*cri... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

From the left?

*crickets*

(From the left....here's wh... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

(From the left....here's why you folks are so pathetic and dishonest.)

Jay:

Are you just a mindless shill for the Republicans? We've had this discussion before where you claim to be an independent thinker. Bit this piece of dishonest trash might be the topper of all the distortions you've written. You take a sentence clearly out of context of the article and make a blatantly false conclusion.
Of course, you left out the earlier paragraph and sentence where the article clearly refers to the time frame:
"But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

Have you read any of the IAEA reports of their inspections? In case not here is the conclusion from their interim report in 2003:

Conclusion
"......

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to us by resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate. I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its co-operation.

The NYT is out and out lyin... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

The NYT is out and out lying to help the democrats despite video reality.

"Mr. Kerry's prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." In his delivery, he dropped the word "us.""

http://patterico.com/2006/11/02/5332/new-york-times-lies-to-its-readers-about-the-content-of-kerrys-remarks/

If the report was accurate, then we would be only discussing Kerry's comedic timing in his delivery. But of course, that isn't what he said.

"You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o

But of course the liberals are happy to invade peoples personal privacy (e.g. trying to expose gay republicans), snoop on private communication (e.g. Foley emails) or out right lie (e.g. this latest NYT piece) if it helps them get power. Now the democrats are happy to try and protect the privacy of terrorist, oppose securing our borders and make sure that you only get a 2% return on your retirement plan by blocking SSI reform, so you can't say they don't stand for something. If that drive for power without concious doesn't scare you, you aren't paying attention to the stakes.

AddendumAny eviden... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Addendum

Any evidence of anykind since 2003 of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq? Uranium? Buildings? Facilities? Anything?

It's rather carelessly w... (Below threshold)
OCSteve:

It's rather carelessly written, but the interpretation I get is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that.

I disagree Jay. I think the right-o-sphere is going out on a limb with this. Parse it a little more closely:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors

In the entire article, the only thing tied to 2002 are reports prepared for UN inspectors. Not the same thing as weapons plans. I don't know why they included that.

I think the only valid point here is that they had these plans pre-war, and could have sold them or given them away to anyone. I would make a case that was a valid threat, but not that they were a year away from a weapon in 02.

You see, by tomorrow it'll ... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

You see, by tomorrow it'll be that they flubbed the joke. What they meant to say was

"... Experts in flatulence say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building a big ass stink bomb, as little as a year away from stinking up the whole world, but instead we attacked and Mr. Hussein shit his pants. So, you see, it's all our fault that only Iraq smells bad"

creeeeeeeeeeeeeeek, creeeeeeeeeeeeeeek, creeeeeek

Hugh,According to ... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Hugh,

According to the NYT (admittedly a source that has proved it is willing to lie to further democratic goals), Saddam was within a year of getting an atomic bomb.

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/11/mask-slips-vol-2-iraqs-nuclear-weapons.html

Plus there is the little matter of the hundreds of chemical weapons recovered in Iraq.

It is very hard to argue about an averted future. For example, make the case that millions of people would have been gassed in Germany if Hitler had died in 1930. If we hadn't seen it happen, I doubt we could ever convince ourselves that Germany would have done it (start a war? sure. Mass killings of their own people? no).

It's a joke, right? Saddam,... (Below threshold)
bill:

It's a joke, right? Saddam, WMDs, no way right?

The New York Times has a John Kerry moment.

If you have been tracking the translation of the documents over at freerepublic, you would have known that this was going to happen, the truth was going to come out. Saddam was actively reconstituting his WMD programs including the quest for the nuclear bomb.

It's ironic the NYTimes sees this as an attack on Bush for putting the documents out in public that discloses Saddam's nuclear program. How cool is that. The chief irresponsible leaker of classified data blows the no WMD mime into orbit.

I know it's not hard for yo... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I know it's not hard for you to understand, but seeing as you really, really want to spin this, it's pretty pathetic you're pretending not to understand. I'll break it down for you.

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002

The documents were written for the inspectors, once in the '90s when Iraq's weapons programs were dismantled, then again when the UN made Hussein provide details in the run-up to the war. Easy to understand? For most people, yes.

for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

"At the time" refers quite obviously to "after the Persian Gulf war" (notice how one immediately precedes the other?). Anyone who honestly does not understand that is either unfamiliar with the conventions of the English language (or language in general), or is a complete moron. Plus you have to completely ignore this paragraph from the story:

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

We already knew about Iraq's Gulf War-era nuclear weapons program, and it's dismantling, in the 90s. That our government decided to put the plans from that program on the internet for anyone to download is quite a stupid move, and I can see why apologists would want to spin it to deflect criticism. And seeing as how this site has run 5 posts since last night saying pretty much the same thing, and you guys aren't complete morons unfamiliar with English, it's pretty clear what you're doing.

But you, Jay, are an independent, not a Republican apologist, right? You wouldn't knowingly sling a pile of bullshit just to cover up for the stupidity of this administration and Congress, right? Of course you wouldn't. Oh wait,

It's rather carelessly written, but the interpretation I get is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon.

Yes you would. Either that or you're a moron. Take your pick.

War is violent... if our mi... (Below threshold)
jeff:

War is violent... if our military is the most violent the world has yet to see then my compliments to them. I do take tremendous exception to the "murderous" part of the statement.

teyanotherjohn;Try... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

teyanotherjohn;

Try reading the piece yourself instead of relying on another wingnut blogger. It's pretty clear even for those who rely on Linbaugh and Hannity for their news. Try thinking for yourself as well.

And the horeshit rationalizations you folks come up with to justify the failed reasons are still just that -horseshit.

"Earlier today, I ordered A... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors"
- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98

The evidence of Saddam's WM... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The evidence of Saddam's WMD programs has been slowly coming out for the past few months as people go through the documents and convert them to english. With the millions of documents it will still take a long time, the democrats hope until after Nov 08. Someone will come across the trigger document any day.

Save a bullet or rope for Hersh

Even with the "pre-1991" in... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Even with the "pre-1991" interpretation everyone misses a key factor that was part of the original thrust of the NYT story.

1) There was sufficient technical detail in those plans to advance Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programs.

2) Those documents were picked up with other documents with the 2003 invasion.

Basically Saddam had Sophisticated Nuclear Weapons Technology on hand in 2003. Sophisticated enough to supposedly help the Iranians today. That is a violation of his Gulf War I surrender. They may have been developed pre-1991, but he wasn't suppose to have them post-1991. Yet he held onto the tech for 12 years and it escaped the knowledge of the IAEA inspectors.

Geez Louise,Now is... (Below threshold)
Tano:

Geez Louise,

Now isnt this a sorry sight indeed.

We've got two incidents this week in which the GOP tried to stem the tide of their onrushing accountability moment. And this is about all they can come up with.

John Kerry makes a joke about the President, and does so in a manner that might, perhaps, in some way, conceivaly be misinterpreted. Everyone knows perfectly well what he meant. But if we can pretend otherwise, if we can assert loudly enough that he meant what we all know he didnt mean, then we can wrap ourselves in the bosom of the military and all feel like victims of this mean man. And, I guess, we should then conclude that because this mean man said these mean things (which he didnt of course) then we should all go out and vote for the Republican party to control the Congress for another two years.

And then we have incident two. A story about the nuclear program in Iraq before the Gulf War. That the events transpired before that war are unambiguous. If you read the article, it states that, unambiguously, several times. But in one sentence, there could be, maybe, possibly, if you turn your head sideways, a sentence construction that could be confusing. So, once again, lets completely ignore reality, lets completely ignore all the other evidence for what the correct meaning was, and lets pretend that the mistaken assumption is the correct one. That means that everything we know is wrong, that Saddam was about to nuke NYC, that the war was a matter of the highest urgency, and, by the way, we should all go out and vote for the Repbulicans to control Congress for the next two years.

The lunatics have taken full control of the GOP asylum by now. Just imagine what the ride will be like if / when they sense, over the next two years, that future occupancy of the White House will be slipping from their grasp as well.

OMG... Hugh and Mantis are ... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

OMG... Hugh and Mantis are pissing all over themselves. It must be true, Advanced Thank you to the NYT from Carl Rove!!

I think after all the shit ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

I think after all the shit the libs put him through, when irrefutable evidence (even by donk standards - like a semen stained blue clothing in Billy's case) of nukes come out, we ought to change the Constitution to give President Bush 8 more years from that point on.

Hugh, there was no way poss... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hugh, there was no way possible that in 2003 anybody translated and analyzed these docs. We don't have that many people who read arabic, so it took a while.

You are way off base here, as usual.

Ho-hum, Dems. are nervous. What's new.

There are no WMDs, no matt... (Below threshold)
Lee:

There are no WMDs, no matter how any tries to prove it.

Evidence of Iraq's possible... (Below threshold)
Chris Gill:

Evidence of Iraq's possible nuclear program

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32195-2004Jul6.html

Now to the analysis

Liberals are so fixated on the sophistication of context, they fail to grasp the elementary facts of an issue, which are often devoid of any context. In short, liberals are so much smarter than everyone else, they refuse to be convinced otherwise...... Even as it makes them look like complete DUMBASSES!!!

Now, the Times is on schedule with their "Breaking News" story. The NBA Finals are in May, the Running of the bulls in Spain is in July, The Heisman show is in December, and the NYT runs a hit piece meant to hurt Bush before an election that ends up contradicting every meme run on it's front/editorial pages since the last election. Almost like, "let me see.. the election is in seeevvveeennn daayyss...., HEY!! A NYT sham hit piece... Let me synchronize my watch".

There is no context. Either Kerry said what he said or he didn't. It doesn't matter who he meant to insult. But that's what happens when you are a smug, pompous elitest. You shoot yourself in the foot, right as it is flying into your mouth. His entire '04 campaign was criticizing and insulting Bush. No plan, No vision, nothing that said this is John Kerry's plan for America.

And the weapons issue. If the media spent more time reporting all of the facts, instead of opposing Bush, they would get back some of their viewership and circulation.

Republican bloggers are sho... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Republican bloggers are showing signs of fatigue. The constant spin jobs must be exhausting...

Republican congressmen pressured the White House to post Arabic-language bomb-making instructions on the Internet with the hopes of uncovering proof that Saddam had WMDs. The most dangerous of these documents were posted just last week while pressure mounted on incumbent Republicans as the polls showed them slipping further behind in the polls.

Republicans were concerned about maintaining power in Congress, and not concerned about revealing bomb-making instructions to terrorists.

The WMD "smoking gun" that conservative bloggers hope will save their butts on the WMD issue is what, 14 or 15 years old?

For that, the Republicans gladly sacrificed our national security?

Vote these clowns out of office. I can't believe how moronic and self-centered the Republican party has become!

Mitchell,They are ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Mitchell,

They are nervous. The House will not go Dem. The Senate was never in question. John Kerry will not be a viable candidate in 08'. All happened this week.

It's like Michael Moore and Streisand announcing their retirement in the same week. Please Lee, don't do anything stupid.

muirgeo, you can go ahead.

I agree that the bit about ... (Below threshold)
mcg:

I agree that the bit about the nuclear program was a reference to 1991. It is important to recall that at the time the world had indeed underestimated how close Iraq was to a bomb. I don't believe that they were a year away anymore by 2002.

However, what is important about the NYT article is that effectively validates the veracity of the documents released. I mean, they can't have it both ways; either they are genuine and contain sensitive information, or they don't, and this is a complete non-story. Since the libs don't want this to be a non-story, I'm not willing to either.

So while we're talking about this claim that some of the documents could conceivably assist rogue nations in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, what about the follwing revelations from the same memos?
* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.
* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq
* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7
* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it
* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002

Are the libs now willing to concede that the justifications that George Bush used to go to war were, in fact, legitimate?

(hat tip CQ)

There are no WMDs,... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
There are no WMDs, no matter how any tries to prove it.

Translation: I reject reality, and choose to substitute my own.

When my 3 year old godson does this, it is cute.

While I have no difficulty ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

While I have no difficulty losing track of reality - the comment quoted by ScsiWuzzy is not mine, but is a troll who's been following me around Wizbang for the last few days using my name.

Don't sweat it Lee. We wou... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Don't sweat it Lee. We wouldn't mistake any old Troll for you.

That fake Lee, he's making comments as dumb as CNN sponsoring an ad on Wizbang for their election coverage.

Hugh and Lee. Go back to a ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Hugh and Lee. Go back to a few months after the war started and you will find mention of 'tons' of uranium, some enriched (1.5 tons +) to the point it was so dangerous that special containers were sent to Iraq. It was packed up and shipped out of the country immediately. You can most likely locate it in Oak Ridge, Tn. That is along with a complete nuclear program given up by Libya and transported to Oak Ridge.
The U.S. won't release the full details because it would make our phony friends in Russia, China, France and Germany look really, really bad.

"There are no WMDs, no m... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"There are no WMDs, no matter how any tries to prove it [sic]."

Liar, Lee. You're a FUCKING LIAR!

And all those dead Kurds just collapsed from heart attacks, right?

As I've said before, I almost hope you clowns DO take over, just so you can wet your diapers when you realize you'll actually have to do something more than scream BUSHITLERKKKARLROVECHIMPYHALLIBURTONLIESLIESLIES!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, who am I kidding? If you win, you'll try to impeach Bush, then you'll cut off funding for the war. Hell, those soldiers are all Rethuglikkkan dummies, anyway, right - they have to be, since John "I Served in Vietnam (TN)" says so. They deserve to go back to their burger-flipping McJobs.

Traitors. Lousy, stinking traitors, every last one of you bastards.

I tried to post this a b... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I tried to post this a bit ago, but it didn't show up...let me try again.

Without a doubt the government was irresponsible, lazy and stupid as hell for posting sensitive information like this, no matter how much it supports that Saddam's Iraq was indeed pursuing nuclear weapons through research. That said...

With all due repsect, I also believe that the following paragraphs are far more telling and supportive in the justiciation for pre-emptive war than the one Jay cited:

European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.

The deletions, the diplomats said, had been done in consultation with the United States and other nuclear-weapons nations. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which ran the nuclear part of the inspections, told the Security Council in late 2002 that the deletions were "consistent with the principle that proliferation-sensitive information should not be released."

These paragraphs support two major points in US justification for going to war: 1.) Iraq was indeed pursuring nuclear WMD via research (a clear violation of Resolution 667 and all subsequent resolutions, including 1441); 2.) The "deletions" and edited versions of the documents Iraq submitted to the UN Security Council are further incontestable proof that Saddam's deception program was highly sucessful and effective and, most importantly, would not (and possibly never) have been discovered by the UN and inspectors had it not been for invasion and liberation of Iraq by the Coalition. In short, Saddam STILL wasn't cooperating, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter be damned.

It is a simple fact for any... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

It is a simple fact for anyone doing a little checking...the Times went to Negroponte..told them about the nuke stuff...THE GOVT REMOVED IT..THEN AND ONLY THEN DID THE TMES RUN THE STORY..again, they waited until it could not be accessed as the result of their story...
At what point in time will our nation quit attacking the messenger as more important then the message?
The message is also simple..the Republicans are not making us safer..the voters have wised up in the past two years...7 troops were killed yesterday in Iraq..we should never forget wounded to killed ratio is about 8 to one...
Saddam's sentence on Monday(more BS timing just like the Dems)is only going to crank up the Sunni...No matter the dancing..Tuesday will a mandate...bash away..I am only a messenger...

Dudes,Stop making ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Dudes,

Stop making so much sense and presenting compelling evidence! What the hell you doing that for, guys? Peter F. Scrapiron Chris Gill et.al.

It's Friday and the election's on Tuesday! We'll have a relatively successful election (much much better than Charlie Cook wished for) -- we should be getting ready for the weekend and be in a joyful mood. Let's get that photo up again with the German girls with the beer.

nogo,come on now. ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

nogo,

come on now. You're much more than a messenger. You're also a girlyman moron.

one last before my kids com... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

one last before my kids come back from lunch...if Bush inc had any real proof justifying WMD's and Nukes they would use it...isn't that a reasonable supposition? The Republicans are going down because of Iraq...All Bush has to do is do a prime time on Monday quoting the opinions given or cited here and the nation will be assured...why are the Dems and moonbats preventing him from doing this?

"They told stories at times... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun..."

So I ask again, WHY DIDN'T KERRY TURN THE NAMES OF THESE PEOPLE OVER TO THE APPROPRIATE ATHORITIES IN PRIVATE??? INSTEAD HE DID NOTHING EXCEPT TO COMPLAIN TO THE COMMUNISTS IN PUBLIC!!! THAT was his downfall. The reason: He hates the military and America - and shows it on occasion when he gets "off his script" and discribes his TRUE THOUGHTS unintentionally....

correction:"COMMUN... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

correction:

"COMMUNISTS AND THE WORLD"

"one last before my kids co... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"one last before my kids come back from lunch..."

Is you wife working while you're at home doing the dishes??

oooops, i mean 'your significant other'?

If you read the story, it r... (Below threshold)
Corky Boyd:

If you read the story, it really is a nothing story though the Times is obviously trying to make something out of it. In the case of the Sarin document, it was taken down shortly after someone complained that it was too specific on the manufacturing techniques. In the most recent case the site was taken down when the Times and others began questioning the detail of one of the nuclear documents. The administration has been quite responsive when informed people have questioned the wisdom of publishing specific information, a conclusion the Times fails to come by.

Quite frankly there is much on the internet, some quite specific on the design parameters of nuclear weapons. As far as chemical weapons, Sarin was made by a Japanese terrorist group using open source information. Here is an example of what can be found on the internet for nukes: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html

What the Times has done is bring up the specter of Saddam's WMD intentions at a time in the election cycle it hurts Democrats. For those who choose to be blind to Saddam's ambitions, remember he kicked the inspectors out, in violation of the peace agreements. The scientists and engineers who had worked on WMD programs continued to work for the government, and not designing belt buckles. And the whitewash UN report was written under the direction of Hans Blix, who recently stated Iraq was better off under Saddam, than it is now. Hardly an impartial observer.

nope 3rd grade teacher..</p... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

nope 3rd grade teacher..

You are a TEACHER??? OMGG... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

You are a TEACHER??? OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

You just reminded me why we taught our own children... My sons 3rd grade teacher had a Dukakis button. I complained, the school did nothing, so I pulled my son out.

Are some of you forgetting ... (Below threshold)

Are some of you forgetting that Saddam wasn't supposed to have such documentation? Why would he stash them away unless he planned to use them after France and Russia could help him get sanctions lifted? And el Baradei and his pals should be upset that they were made to look foolish with the quote Hugh gives us above about how "cooperative" Saddam was being in early '03.

Corky said: "If you read... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Corky said: "If you read the story, it really is a nothing story though the Times is obviously trying to make something out of it. In the case of the Sarin document, it was taken down shortly after someone complained that it was too specific on the manufacturing techniques. In the most recent case the site was taken down when the Times and others began questioning the detail of one of the nuclear documents. The administration has been quite responsive when informed people have questioned the wisdom of publishing specific information, a conclusion the Times fails to come by."

Corky - we need informed people making the decision as to what goes public and what doesn't go public. The Republicans clearly botched that job.

Pulling the information off after the terrorists have all copied the info does no good. It (the most recent posting) was up for a week - plenty of time for it to be copied.

Why weren't the experts consulted BEFORE the documents were posted. It's a stoopid, stoopid blunder. Who's going to apologize when the briefcase nuke kills 100,000 in Los Angeles?

Republicans have their priorities all screwed up. They care more about political power than homeland security. They want to torture terrorists, and yet they feed them instructions on making nukes IN ARABIC so they don't risk losing something in the translation.

It is sickening....

Wizbang participants,... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Wizbang participants,

Please homeschool your children as steak and I do.

nogo, if I say "George W." to my 4 y.o., he quickly replies "top 5 president". If I say "Reagan" he says "best President". If I say "Bill Clinton", he says "bad man". Can your 3rd graders do that? Once he got confused and said "top 5 president" for Clinton -- he went without dinner that night.

Not only did I take my daug... (Below threshold)
potatoes111111:

Not only did I take my daughter out of her classroom because HER teacher was wearing an Al Gore button a few years ago, but I also burned down the school with that infernal teacher in it.

It's the least these liberals deserve.

Someday, years from now, these dems are going to realise that George Bush was their Godsend, a righteous man with a calling. All I can hope for now is that each and every liberal is sent on a slave boat to Cuba to live their lives in fear, because only the republicans are the people with real courage.

We react to fear the right way, by letting our President do what he needs to do. We're at war! Anyone who questions our President is a traitor.

...and I also am personally... (Below threshold)
potatoes111111:

...and I also am personally responsible for keeping 6,000 illegal aliens from entering our country by showing up at the border with my humvee and screaming at them in broken english!

Anyone have a tic-tac?... (Below threshold)
potatoes111111:

Anyone have a tic-tac?

Well...maybe I didn't actua... (Below threshold)
potatoes111111:

Well...maybe I didn't actually burn down the school, more like just got really really really angry at it. Wouldn't you?

steak,Scary indeed. ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

steak,
Scary indeed. Muirgeo claims to be a pediatrician. Hope neither of them work in NJ, as I prefer to expose my children to stable adults.

nogo postal is a 3rd grade ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

nogo postal is a 3rd grade reacher?

Now there's an argument for home schooling! LOL

Lee, you are a complete idi... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee, you are a complete idiot. They have found enough WMD to kill everyone who lives in the State you, unfortunately, call home.

Ever notice when the leftie... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Ever notice when the lefties get backed into a corner how "nervous" they get? hughie where have we heard the pharse "taken out of context" before? snicker snicker

Hersh writes for the New Yo... (Below threshold)
jpe:

Hersh writes for the New Yorker, not the Times.

They both start with "n," so that's probably how you got confused.

ScrapsYou're such ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Scraps

You're such a nut job I uusually ignore you(hard to believe you're an EMT what with all the bloodshed you call for) but I can't resist.

Is all that uranium somewhere where they keep all those, you know secret, UFOs? And how often have you ridden in one?

Take your Depacote please.

Now I know that there are a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Now I know that there are at least one or two of you righties who can actually read and don't have to get your news from Oxy Limbaugh. So, for those of you who do would you just go and read the actual report from the actual agency that actually investigated and actually wrote a report? For those with a short attention span here's part of the conclusion. As I said before you folks are desperate and amazingly pathetic. Drowning in quicksand and grasping at the reeds on the bank.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

"Conclusion

In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:


There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme."

"Lee, you are a complete... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, you are a complete idiot. They have found enough WMD to kill everyone who lives in the State you, unfortunately, call home."

"Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III"

Talking out of your *ss again Zelda? You don't even know what state I live in....

On Tuesday Lee and I will b... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

On Tuesday Lee and I will be living in the same state. The great state of Euphoria.

On Tuesday Lee and I wil... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

On Tuesday Lee and I will be living in the same state. The great state of Euphoria.

Champagne tends to go flat when opened too soon. I'd put a cork in it before then if I were you. (Actually, I'd recommend you put a cork in it most of the time.) Oh, and try this little reminder on: 2004 and exit polls.

And one more thing: when AND if Dems do take one of the Houses, we'll all be living in the same state: Congressional Gridlock and Presidential Vetoes.

I've eaten crown before Pet... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I've eaten crown before Peter. I'm man enough to admit it. But this time I think I'm going to be eating filet mignon and drinking sparkling water, unless we get both houses in which case it will be filet and champagne.

I'm sorry I forgot that the right loons believe in a one party, one branch of government. How silly of me. Long Live Emperor Alfred E Bush!!!

Yes, the children, Lee and ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yes, the children, Lee and Hugh, have come out to play.

I voted today but it was anti-climactic. I've got a left wing loon incumbent congressman, so I had to vote for the right wing loon who opposed him, but it won't do any good on that front.

I did for for some law and order types for trial and appellate judges, which will at least gird up, hopefully, one of the three branches down here in N.C.

But no Kerry, Pelosi, et al. I really need a good Presidential election to make me feel like I got in some good licks on the retard Dems (I know, redundant).

My kids are going to Catholic school, most likely--hope we have a 2nd and a 3rd. Hell, I mght have 5 more if it will counterbalance all the latte-sipping fags and whores in the blue states who aren't procreating.

Heh.

ooops....crow... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

ooops....crow

Mitchell:Whast a f... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell:

Whast a fabulous role model you are for those catholic children of yours..."fags", "whores". A good Christian man you beieve I'll bet....Jesus would kick your ass.

Oh, please consider castration.

Actually Mitchell there is ... (Below threshold)
H:

Actually Mitchell there is no question but that you are not a Christian.

I'm sorry I forgot that ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I'm sorry I forgot that the right loons believe in a one party, one branch of government.

We do? Who said it? When? In what context? Prove it.

And...

Calling for someone's castration is remarkably hypocritical and smacks of cheap moral superiority, especially just after chastising and accusing someone for being a poor Christian.

Mitchell:

As a Catholic, I've gotta say calling people "whores" and "fags" isn't very Christian or Catholic, particularly since whores (like Mary Magdelena) and "unclean women" (like the Samaritan woman at the well) and the oppressed and sick were the very people Christ reached out to first.

At the very least, doing so just perpetuates and reinforces the Left's steortypes of ALL people on the right as being bigoted and/or racist at core. Sorry to chastize.

(This has been completely off topic.)

"Of course Americans should... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, and infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity said. Who's the enemy again? and why are democrats standing on the same side as Terrorists?

You know, I am not Catholic... (Below threshold)
MItchell:

You know, I am not Catholic, but I have to hand it to them, at least they know what they believe in, and are understandably more critical of our society than some of us good Protestants are.

I made these statements because of the in-your-face gay and promiscuous/abortion on demand crowd that animates and is the core of the Dim Party.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are a very large interest group now in that Party. And I could not care less what some lazy-minded lib. might think of my post. I've got more advanced degrees than most of 'em, not that it matters, but I'm certainly not cowed by their schtick--a thinking person can hold such views.

If you think otherwise, then your playing into the whole wussification of the country(tm) which is just what they intend.

I like my balls, thank you very much.

If you have a problem with the substance of my "attack," I'd be happy to discuss. Otherwise, think it through a bit more.

Peter F., this reminds me o... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Peter F., this reminds me of you:

"Most mainline Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political clichés, on the grounds that if Jesus were alive today he'd most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an 'Arms Are for Hugging' sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams."

Mark Stey, America Alone.

I hope I'm wrong.

Mitchell,Having sp... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Mitchell,

Having spent the first 30 of my first 40 years in life living in the SF Bay Area, I'm keenly well aware of gay activists and pro-abortion advocates and their propensity for shrill, self-righteous political posturing and the pushing of their agendas, so you're hardly bursting my bubble. (i've been fighting with them for years as many are my friends! LOL)

Anyway, like you, I disagree with much of what they promote and they are supremely hypocritical. Moreover, I loathe politcal correctness; it's a disease of thought and language and has (to borrow your phrase) wussified the country. However, my only point is this: As somewho holds advanced degrees, by sterotyping and refering to them as "fags" and "whores" only serves to debase and delegitimize your argument. That's all I'm saying.

"get over it"...was not the... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

"get over it"...was not the repeated mantra by the really right after 2000 and 2004? Let me tell you...you will not get "over it"...you will bitch and point fingers...that is what losers like the Dems in 2000 and 2004 did...after Tues...it will happen here...when it does,,I hope you will embrace the irony...'cause you know someone like Lee will post "get over it" ...and they will have the right to do so...(I will not post such crap cause I still havn't gotten over John Anderson's stilled voice...)

Peter: I'm am not as sensi... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Peter: I'm am not as sensitized to what you have to put up with in S.F. Even in Raleigh, N.C. most are pretty mild in their criticism of this crew. Maybe we need to ratchet it up a bit, and call a spade a spade, so to speak.

All the modest dialogue with them only seems to play to their attempts to "normalize" their lifestyle.

God Bless you in old S.F.! Tough work!

M

Mitchell:It's disg... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell:

It's disgusting watching you try to rationalize those despicable words you used. As I said I don't see you as a Christian.

You are regularly self-righteous and pompous in your posts. Do you say "fags" and whores" in front of your children? If not, why?

Gays are a very large interest group, therefore it's ok for me to call them a fag is what your statement means. How weak. How pathetic. And you don't have the friggin balls to own the slur and say it was a mistake on your part to say it. Do you stand by those words?

One of the complete turnoffs to me about the "Christian right-wing" is just what you've done. it's the Colorado pastor today who was exposed (no pun intended). You pontificate with an air of moral superiority, judge other peoples values loudly and often. But you call gays "fags" and others "whores".

You make me sick. That attitude and belief system has begun to make the country sick. Not too soon. It's not the left that's effete, it's you and your fellow righties.

There have been several pos... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

There have been several posters who have cited me committing myself to education as a reason for home schools..I will give credit for those who take the time and effort to those whom home school..however..home school too often restricts the social interaction...
Sooner or later all our children will grow up and be faced with conflicts to their core beliefs...at that time it is up to them..not us...to mitigate those experiences...all i try to do is give them the basic language and mathimatical tools to assist them in their journey...whatever "moral" filters in place are up to the parents..

Hugh,In case you m... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hugh,

In case you missed it before (apparently you did), let me repeat myself from previous post:

Calling for someone's castration is remarkably hypocritical and smacks of cheap moral superiority just after chastising and accusing someone for being a poor Christian!

Lee, your reply idicates an... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee, your reply idicates and IQ of about 20. That may be a little on the high side. Judging from most of your posts I was sure single digits were idicated. Over 1000 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. It really is not relevant which state you infest.

Then there's this<... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Then there's this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6114458.stm

that sure makes it appear to me as if Saddam was trying to build nukes.

You did know that Seymour H... (Below threshold)
Republican Congressman Mark Foley:

You did know that Seymour Hersh doesn't write for the New York Times, right?

No, no you didn't.

"But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

You did know that Iraq was a year away from having nukes, but the year was 1990?

No, no you didn't.

You did know that Republicans posted instructions on how to build a nuke, being careful to leave them in their original Arabic so that terrorists didn't have to translate, right?

No, no you didn't.

Your blog post would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

Anybody hear of the word VE... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Anybody hear of the word VETO? So what if you libs do pick up a seat or two. What good will it do you? Huh.

let's backtrack a little:</... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

let's backtrack a little:

Republicans are saying these documents prove it was right for the US to invade so Saddam didn't sell the plans to Iran or terrorists, correct?

But now it's revealed that because of Republican pressure (both Congressmen and the wingnuts here at Wizbang and their ilk) to prove the war was worth it, they print all these documents unfiltered on the internet for ANYONE TO GET FOR FREE!

Further, inspections in Iraq through 1998 showed his nuke program had not restarted. The inspections in 2002 also showed it had not restarted. He may have wanted to, and France and Russia may have wanted to remove sanctions, but there is no way the US or Britain would have allowed it, so there is no way Saddam would have been able to start a nuke program again, as much as he may have wanted to.

Moreso, there is NO WAY Saddam would have given the plans to Iran. As much as Saddam hated the US, he hated Iran more. There is no way he would have given critical military information to strengthen his biggest strategic opponent. (al Qaeda, more likely, still very unlikely, but al Qaeda would have had a hard time doing anything with them considering they had no scientific infrastructure to construct a bomb.)

Finally, let's not forget that AQ Khan was selling nuke program details in the late 90s-early 00s. So any country or terrorist could have gone to him to get them and not deal with the scrutiny that would surround Saddam.

So in conclusion, you all are fucking idiots for thinking this proves anything other than Repubs were more concerned about politics than national security.

(I know, I know, NSA and SWIFT, but which is worse, general statements that we're tapping phones and tracing bank records, stuff that everyone already knew, or actual engineering specs for nuclear weapons? I think the answer is pretty obvious, I hope you all do too.)

Peter:You are abso... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter:

You are absolutley correct. I was out of line with the castration comment. My apology to Mitchell.

While you all are mocking t... (Below threshold)

While you all are mocking the NYT here is what ultra Neocon. Richard "prince of darkness" Perle has to say about President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

Caution, this article is for only fair minded individuals, Kool-Aid drinkers from the left and right might experience a severe case of brain explosions.

"http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=1"

So, why would the Times ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

So, why would the Times release -- less than a week before the elections -- a story that tends to disprove the arguments of so many on the Left, that Saddam had no WMDs, no WMD programs, and did not pose an "imminent threat?"

Hobson's Choice. Perhaps the Washington Post had the story as well...Lose/lose situation. Hold the story back, and the Post has a scoop, or release it now and claim the scoop, but rally the Right base.

Hugh, we are all big boys a... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hugh, we are all big boys and girls here. No need to apologize to me. I like the rough and tumble of telling it exactly how you see it.

I think we should look beyond labels like "fag" and "whore," which we all use for effect, to the substance of the issue. My point was that it is important to fight for the values that to date have made our civilization great, but are now under assault.

It does not benefit your argument, or Lee's/Mantis' et al, to cite some creepy gay evangelical, or Mark Foley.

That there are those who would engage in perversion on the Right does not in any respect weaken the moral claims and values we, or even they, espouse.

If you have a problem with fighting jihadists, or keeping child predators off the street, or raging gays away from our children as "role models," then let's have that discussion. But quit with the whining about some harsh language. We're all grown ups here (well, at least in age).

And quit being hypocritical about it, for crying out loud.

Mitchell:I shook h... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell:

I shook hands with Oyster the other day, now you too? Ewwwww....oh well :-)

Seymour Hersch writes for t... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Seymour Hersch writes for the New Yorker, you god damned moron.

The Iraqi nuclear program w... (Below threshold)
Gerard:

The Iraqi nuclear program was from before the Gulf War. The smoking gun you are talking about doesn't exist. The report written on 02 was to show the inspectors they were complying with the UN resolution. They would not have admitted to continuing the program into 2002 in their own report. Are you that dumb, or do you just count on your readers to be?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy